﻿
328
Salgado v. The Chairman, Village Committee, TJdapattu
Present; K. D. de Silva, J., and Sansoni, J.M.J. SALGADO, Appellant, and THE CHAIRMAN, VILLAGECOMMITTEE, UDAPATTU, Respondent8. C. 1—Rural Court (Case Stated)
Village Communities Ordinance (Cap. J9S)—Sections 46 (as amended by Act No. 8 of1962) and 62—Licence issued by a Village Committee under a by-law—Licenceduty not always necessary—By-law 1 of Local Authorities (Standard By-Laws)Part XIII.
Although under section 46 of the Village Communities Ordinance, as amendedby the Local Authorities (Enlargement of Powers) Act No. 8 of 1952, a VillageCommittee “ may impose and levy on every licence ” a licence duty at approvedrates, it is not imperative that a duty should be imposed in respect of everylicence issued by a Village Committee. Accordingly, carrying on the businessof a provision store without obtaining a licence, in contravention of By-Law 1contained in Part XIII of the Local Authorities (Standard By-Laws) Act No. 6of 1952, is an offence punishable under section 63 of the Village CommunitiesOrdinance, although a licence duty has not been fixed in respect of the requiredlicence.
ME SILVA, J.—iScdgado v. The Chairman, Village Committee, Udapattu 329
Case stated by the District Judge, Ratnapura, under the provisoto section 42 (5) of the Rural Courts Ordinance, No. 12 of 1945.
A. M. Candappa, for the accused-appellant.
V. 8. A. Pullenayegum, as amicus curiae.
Cur. adv. vult.
July 11, 1956, de Silva, J.—
This is a case stated by the District Judge, Ratnapura, under theproviso to section 42 sub-section 5 of the Rural Courts Ordinance No. 12of 1945. In R. C. Kuruwita Case No. CRM 2161 one M. J. Salgado was-charged with carrying on the business of a provision Store withoutobtaining a licence from the Chairman, Village Committee, Uda Pattu,Kuruwita Korale in contravention of By-law 1 contained in part XIIIof Local Authorities (Standard By-laws) Act No. 6 of 1952 an offencepunishable under section 63 of the Village Communities Ordinance(Cap. 198). The President convicted him of the charge and sentencedhim to pay a fine of Rs. 35. He appealed to the District Judge who has-now stated a case for the opinion of the Supreme Court on a questionof law arising out of the appeal. The By-law in question reads aafollows:—
“ No person shall keep any shop or place (other than a market) forthe sale of meat, poultry, fish, vegetables or other perishable articlesof food except on a licence duly obtained in that behalf from theChairman. Every such licence shall expire on the 31st day of Decemberin each year. ”
It is admitted that this By-Law was adopted by the Village Committeein question. It was contended by the accused appellant in his petitionof appeal that the charge against him cannot be maintained as the licenceduty in respect of a shop referred to in the By-Law in question has notbeen prescribed. The point of law arising out of the appeal has beenstated by the District Judge in the following terms:—
“ In the absence of proof that the licence duty has been fixed in respectof a Provision Store under this by-law the question is whether theappellant has contravened the by-law in that he has not duly obtaineda licence from the Chairman. ”
This question must be answered in the affirmative. It is true thataccording to section 46 of the Village Communities Ordinance (Cap. 198)as amended by the Local Authorities (Enlargement of Powers) Act No. 8of 1952 a Village Committee “ may impose and levy on every licence ”a licence duty at approved rates. This does not mean that it is imperativethat a duty should be imposed in respect of every licence issued by the-
330
SANSONI, J.—Girigoris Appukamy v. Maria Nona
Village Committee. It is in the discretion of the Village Committee toimpose a licence duty or not. There are instances where licences haveto be obtained although no licence duty is payable. The by-law inquestion requires every shop to which it applies to have a licence. Iftherefore no licence is taken out in respect of such a shop a contraventionof the by-law takes place. Section 63 of the Village CommunitiesOrdinance (Cap. 198) makes such contravention a punishable offence.The conviction of the accused in this case therefore is warranted by law.
Sansoni, J.—I agree.
Appeal dismissed.